The Eurasian Knot

Over the last century, tens of millions of people quit Eastern Europe for the United States. The push-pull factors were many—war, poverty, instability, persecution at home and opportunity, refuge, and liberty abroad. But manna didn’t simply fall from the sky in America. Immigrants from Eastern Europe confronted many of the same challenges migrants do everywhere—exploitation, hardship, and discrimination.

Thresholds is a REEES podcast series that will grapple with these histories through interviews with scholars and immigrants’ personal profiles. What pushed them to leave? What did they discover when they arrived? How did they change and be changed by American society? What opportunities and challenges did they face to become “American”? And what can we learn about immigration today?

Guest:

Tara Zahra is the Hanna Holborn Gray Professor of East European History at the University of Chicago. She’s the author of The Great Departure: Mass Migration and the Making of the Free World published by W. W. Norton & Company.

Thresholds was edited and produced by Jojo Ellis and Sean Guillory.
Music by Blue Dot Sessions.
Theme song: "Immigration Rose" by James Doherty, 1924.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Georgian Democratic Republic lasted a mere three years, from 1918-1921. And though it was viewed as an oddity at the time, many European social democrats marveled at its possibilities. Here was a state committed to social democracy in a mostly backward peasant and multiethnic country. What promises did it hold for the future? Unfortunately, the world never learned because the Bolsheviks crushed it in 1921 and proceeded to sovietize Georgia. The republic was denounced as counter revolutionary and its memory faded as its founders died in exile. So what was this brief experiment in social democracy in the south Caucasus? What were its political positions and aspirations? What does it say about the history of the Russian Revolution? How and why did it fall after only three years? Stephen Jones has been researching these questions for over 40 years, and that has culminated in his opus The First Social Democracy: The Democratic Republic of Georgia, 1918-1921. The Eurasian Knot spoke to Jones about his highly anticipated book to learn more about this historical “oddity” and how it might speak to us today.

Guest:

Stephen Jones is Professor of Georgian Modern History at Ilia State University in Georgia. His books include Socialism in Georgian Colors: The European Road to Social Democracy, 1883-1917 and Georgia: A Political History Since Independence. His latest book is The First Social Democracy: The Democratic Republic of Georgia, 1918-1921 published by Harvard University Press.
Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Everyone has an opinion about the late Russian historian Richard Pipes. Some loved him. Many hated him. He was a conservative and anti-communist. A hardliner on American policy toward the Soviet Union. Some would even say he was a Russophobe and cultural essentialist. But Pipes was a far more complicated figure. A Polish Jew whose family fled before the Nazis arrived, Pipes possessed a strong moral center that stood at the heart of his rejection of the USSR. He eventually applied his vision to his work as a Russian historian at Harvard. Pipes was also at the ground floor of a new academic discipline. He studied under Michael Karpovich, the founder of Russian studies in the US, and was part of a grad cohort that included Russian history Brahmins Leopold Haimson, Marc Raeff, Martian Malia, and Nicholas Raisonovsky. All these men would staff history departments at Berkeley, Harvard, and Columbia, and train a generation of scholars. Pipes knew his stuff, and eventually applied his knowledge in public debate and advice to the Reagan Administration. Pipes was a man of the 20th century, and in my opinion, one of the last serious intellectual conservatives. So who was he? How did he “know” Russia? And in what ways does his historical analysis of Russia, which spanned centuries, echo today? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Jonathan Daly, a former Pipes student, about his new biography of Pipes, The Man Who Knew Russia, and what drove this self-identified perennial outsider.

Also, check out my article “Richard Pipes, the Historian as Essentialist” published in Jacobin in 2018.

Guest:

Jonathan Daly teaches Russian, European, and world history at the University of Illinois Chicago. He’s the author of several books, most recently he edited Pillars of the Profession: The Correspondence of Richard Pipes and Marc Raeff and wrote The Man Who Knew Russia: Richard Pipes, Humanist and Cold Warrior published by Stanford University Press.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Marc Bennets has been reporting from Russia for over two decades. He’s covered Putin’s rise and consolidation of power, assassinations of oppositionists, mass protests, daily life, and even Russian football. It’s a storied career filled with zipping back and forth between Moscow and its regions. Marc also planted roots. He got married and became a dad. But then everything changed in February 2022 with Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine. Should he stay and keep reporting and risk arrest or worse? Or should he pick up his life and family and leave like so many of his colleagues? Marc finally settled on the latter when word came he might be arrested. Now he focuses most of his reporting on the war and Ukraine. How did this all happen? How did Russia descend into madness? Marc’s new book looks to answer that question with personal fire and passion. Is Russia really saturated with Putin? Is there any way back? It’s been a decade since the Eurasian Knot spoke with Marc. So, we caught up and discussed his new book, The Descent: Witnessing Russia's Spiral Into Madness Under Putin, and how the war has irrevocably changed his life, profession, and Russia itself.

Guest:

Marc Bennetts spent 25 years as a foreign correspondent for The Times and The Sunday Times in Russia. He left in May 2022, after the start of the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. He has since made over a dozen reporting trips to Ukraine. He’s the author of The Descent: Witnessing Russia's Spiral Into Madness Under Putin published by Bloomsbury.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

On the night of 27 February 2015, assassins gunned down Boris Nemtsov as he crossed the Bolshoi Moskvoretskii Bridge. Shock quickly spread throughout Russia, particularly among its political opposition. Not because Nemtsov was so brazenly gunned down. Such are the risks of being politically active in Putin’s Russia. Nemtsov had been a fixture in the movement since its earliest days, and in many ways one of its founders. That such an internationally well-connected figure could be wiped out in central Moscow signaled a grim turning point. Hindsight has proven this correct. A decade later, Russia is a very different place. But it always wasn’t like that. In the 1990s, Nemtsov was a young liberal darling, the charismatic hope to succeed Boris Yeltsin. That didn’t happen, as we all know. And another, totally different figure became President. As Mikhail Fishman writes in his political biography, The Successor: Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Putin, and the Decline of Modern Russia, Nemtsov’s life and death had a profound influence on the political consciousness of his generation and nascent Russian liberalism. Who was Boris Nemtsov? How did he rise so quickly to political prominence in the 1990s only to be politically marginalized in the 2000s? Why was he murdered and who murdered him? The Eurasian Knot spoke to Fishman about Nemtsov, his life, and how it reflected Russia’s post-Soviet political development.

Guest:

Mikhail Fishman is one of Russia’s leading independent journalists, liberal thinkers, and political commentators. He’s the author of The Successor: Boris Nemtsov, Vladimir Putin, and the Decline of Modern Russia published by Penguin.

Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.